Hierarchy of Courts in India: Structure of the Judiciary (2026)

What the hierarchy of courts means, and why it’s one pyramid

The single most important thing to understand about Indian courts is that they form one integrated system, not two parallel ones. In the United States, federal courts and state courts run as separate ladders with separate final courts. India rejected that model. The Constitution built a single hierarchy in which the Supreme Court sits above every High Court, and every High Court sits above the district and subordinate courts in its territory, so that one chain of authority runs from a taluka courtroom all the way to Delhi.

Why does that matter in practice? Because it means a law laid down by the Supreme Court binds every court in the country, and a litigant in the smallest civil court is ultimately under the same apex authority as a corporation arguing before a Constitution Bench. Article 141 of the Constitution puts it plainly: the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within the territory of India. There is no state supreme court that can go its own way.

The pyramid has three main tiers. At the top, the Supreme Court. In the middle, the High Courts, which are the highest courts of the states. At the bottom, the district judiciary, which is where the overwhelming majority of cases are filed, heard and decided. This base tier is itself divided by subject: civil disputes go down one branch, criminal cases down another, and the two branches have different court names and different presiding officers even though they often sit in the same building.

Two other structures sit next to the pyramid rather than inside it. Tribunals are specialised bodies set up to decide particular kinds of disputes (company law, tax, environment, service matters) faster than ordinary courts can. And at the grassroots, alternative forums like Lok Adalats and Gram Nyayalayas handle settlement and small local matters. Neither replaces the main hierarchy; both feed into it, because appeals from tribunals and Lok Adalat references ultimately connect back to the High Courts and the Supreme Court.

The reason the courts are ranked this way is not bureaucratic neatness. It’s error correction. Every rung above the trial court exists so that a mistake made below can be caught and fixed on appeal, while the court at the top exists to keep the law uniform across a country of 28 states and 8 union territories. Keep that logic in mind and the rest of the structure stops being a list to memorise and starts making sense.

The Supreme Court of India: the apex court

At the top of everything sits the Supreme Court of India, established under Article 124 of the Constitution and functioning from New Delhi. It is the final court of appeal, the guardian of the Constitution, and a court of record under Article 129, meaning its proceedings and judgments are recorded as conclusive evidence and it can punish for contempt of itself. When the Supreme Court finally decides a question of law, that question is, for practical purposes, settled for the entire country.

How many judges does it have? This is exactly where a stale guide will mislead you. For years the answer was 31, then 34 after the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 2019. As of 2026 the answer has changed again. On 16 May 2026, the President promulgated the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026, raising the sanctioned strength from 34 to 38, that is, the Chief Justice of India plus 37 other judges. The government moved by ordinance ahead of Parliament (a Bill to the same effect had been cleared by the Union Cabinet on 5 May 2026 and is to be ratified in the monsoon session), citing a backlog of over 92,000 cases pending before the Court. So the current sanctioned strength is 38, with the confirming legislation pending. Worth flagging for anyone quoting a number in an exam or a pleading: cite it as “38 (raised by the May 2026 ordinance)” until the Bill is passed.

The Supreme Court’s real power lies in the breadth of its jurisdiction. It doesn’t only hear appeals. It can take certain disputes directly, advise the President, protect fundamental rights, and reach down into any case in the country through its discretionary appeal power.

The provision that does the heaviest lifting is Article 136, the special leave petition, or SLP. It lets the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against virtually any judgment or order of any court or tribunal in India, which is how the Nagpur trader’s fabric dispute could, in theory, reach the same bench that hears constitutional challenges. The discretion is wide, and the Court uses it sparingly, but on paper it is the widest appellate net any court in the country casts.

High Courts: the top of the state judiciary

One rung down sit the High Courts, established under Article 214, which says there shall be a High Court for each state. In practice the map is tidier than that promise, because some High Courts serve more than one state or union territory. As of 2026 there are 25 High Courts in India. Each is a court of record under Article 215, headed by a Chief Justice, with a sanctioned number of other judges that varies by the size of the state and its caseload.

The number 25 is itself a recent fact. For a long while there were 24; the twenty-fifth, the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati, came into existence on 1 January 2019 when the common High Court for Andhra Pradesh and Telangana was bifurcated and a separate Telangana High Court was set up at Hyderabad. Any page still saying “24 High Courts” predates that split. The three oldest, at Calcutta, Bombay and Madras, were all established back in 1862, which is why you’ll sometimes see the Calcutta High Court described as the oldest in the country.

District and subordinate courts: where most cases begin

Below the High Courts lies the district judiciary, and this is where the system actually meets the citizen. More than 80% of all pending cases in India sit in these courts, not in the High Courts or the Supreme Court. If you file a suit or a first information report leads to a charge, this is almost always where it begins. The district judiciary divides into two branches, civil and criminal, and it helps to take them one at a time.

The civil courts hierarchy

Civil courts decide disputes about money, property, contracts, family matters, injunctions and the like. Their structure is set not by a single central law but by each state’s civil courts legislation, so the exact names and pecuniary limits vary a little from state to state. The broad ladder, though, is consistent across the country.

At the top of the district civil structure is the District Judge, who presides over the District Court and hears the most valuable suits and the appeals from courts below. Alongside sit Additional District Judges, who exercise the same powers to share the load. Below them is the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), which handles civil suits above a certain value, and below that the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), which handles suits of lower value. Many states also run Courts of Small Causes for quick disposal of low-value money claims. The appointment and control of these judges is governed by Articles 233 to 237 of the Constitution, with the High Court in charge of the district judiciary.

What separates one civil court from the next is jurisdiction, and jurisdiction comes in three flavours worth knowing. Pecuniary jurisdiction is about the value of the suit: a low-value claim goes to the Junior Division, a higher-value one to the Senior Division or the District Court, with the cut-offs fixed by state law. Territorial jurisdiction is about place: you file where the cause of action arose or where the defendant resides. Subject-matter jurisdiction is about type: some disputes are reserved for special courts (a rent matter, a family dispute) and can’t be filed in an ordinary civil court at all. Get any of the three wrong and your plaint can be returned before it’s even heard.

The criminal courts hierarchy under the BNSS

How a case climbs the ladder: appeals, revisions and references

A hierarchy is only meaningful if cases can move through it, so how exactly does a matter travel from the bottom of the pyramid toward the top? Through three mechanisms: appeals, revisions and references. Understanding the difference is what separates someone who knows the court system from someone who has merely memorised its floor plan.

An appeal is a full re-hearing of a case by a higher court, on both facts and law (for a first appeal) or usually on law alone (for a second appeal). The fabric-trader example from the start is a chain of appeals. His suit was decided by the Civil Judge (Senior Division); his first appeal went to the District Court, which could re-examine the facts; his second appeal went to the Bombay High Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which could intervene only on a substantial question of law. On the criminal side, an appeal from a conviction by a magistrate typically goes to the Court of Session, and from the Court of Session to the High Court.

A revision is narrower. It’s a supervisory look by a higher court (the Sessions Court or the High Court) to check that the court below acted within its jurisdiction and didn’t commit a gross illegality. You can’t use a revision to re-argue the facts. It’s a correction tool, not a second bite at the merits.

A reference is when a lower court itself sends a question up, usually a doubt about the constitutional validity of a law, for the higher court to answer before the case proceeds. Add to these the Supreme Court’s special leave power under Article 136, which lets it pull up almost any matter from anywhere, and you have the full set of channels through which the pyramid stays connected. The general rule is simple: start at the lowest court competent to hear the matter, and move up only when the law gives you a route.

Tribunals: the parallel judicial system

Not every dispute goes through the ordinary courts. Since the 1980s, India has built a parallel network of tribunals: specialised, quasi-judicial bodies designed to decide narrow categories of disputes with subject expertise and (in theory) more speed than a crowded civil court can offer. They were given constitutional backing by Articles 323A and 323B, inserted by the 42nd Amendment, and today they’re governed largely by the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, which standardised the tenure and service conditions of their members.

The list is long, and each tribunal owns a slice of litigation that would otherwise sit in the regular courts. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and its appellate body the NCLAT handle company law and insolvency. The National Green Tribunal (NGT) decides environmental disputes. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) hears service matters of central government employees. Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) and Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals (DRATs) deal with bank recovery. Others include the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT), the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), and the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT).

Specialised and grassroots courts

Between the ordinary civil and criminal courts and the tribunals, India runs a set of specialised courts for particular subjects, plus a grassroots tier meant to deliver justice closer to where people actually live. These don’t sit neatly on the main pyramid, but you can’t map the judiciary honestly without them.

On the specialised side, several forums exist because Parliament decided certain disputes needed dedicated benches. Family Courts, set up under the Family Courts Act, 1984, handle divorce, maintenance, custody and related matrimonial disputes. Commercial Courts, created by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, fast-track high-value business disputes at the district and High Court level. Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions, under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, run a three-tier structure of their own (District, State and National Commissions) for consumer complaints. And across the country, Fast Track Special Courts and dedicated POCSO courts have been set up to speed up trials of sexual offences, alongside special courts for NIA and CBI cases.

At the grassroots, the aim shifts from adjudication to access and settlement. Lok Adalats, organised under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, bring parties together to settle disputes by compromise, and a settlement reached there has the force of a civil court decree with no appeal against it. Permanent Lok Adalats handle certain public utility disputes. Gram Nyayalayas, established under the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008, are mobile village-level courts intended to take justice to rural India, though their rollout across states has been uneven. These forums take pressure off the base of the pyramid, but they operate under it, not outside it: a matter that can’t be settled at a Lok Adalat simply returns to the regular court.

Does a citizen need to track all of this? Not really. But knowing that a rent dispute, a consumer complaint and a matrimonial matter each have a purpose-built forum can save months of filing in the wrong place, which is the most common and most avoidable mistake in Indian litigation.

Who staffs these courts, and how they are appointed

A structure is only as good as the people in it, so who becomes a judge, and how? The answer differs sharply between the higher judiciary and the district judiciary, and the difference is one of the more contested features of the Indian system.

Common points of confusion

A few things about the court hierarchy trip people up again and again, including law students who should know better. Worth clearing them up directly.

Is the District Court the same as the Sessions Court? Effectively yes, but wearing two hats. The same senior judge at the district headquarters presides over the District Court when hearing civil matters and is called the District Judge, and over the Court of Session when hearing serious criminal matters, where the title becomes Sessions Judge. Same person, same building, different jurisdiction depending on whether the case is civil or criminal. The names confuse people into thinking these are two separate courts on different rungs. They aren’t.

What’s the difference between Article 32 and Article 226? Both are writ powers, but Article 32 is a fundamental right in itself and can only be used to enforce other fundamental rights, and only before the Supreme Court. Article 226 is a constitutional power of the High Courts, and it’s broader, because it covers fundamental rights “and any other purpose,” meaning ordinary legal rights too. Practically, that’s why a huge volume of litigation against the state begins in the High Court rather than the Supreme Court.

Is a tribunal a court? Not in the strict sense. A tribunal is a quasi-judicial body created by statute for a specific subject, and while it decides disputes like a court, it isn’t part of the regular civil or criminal court hierarchy and its members aren’t always career judges. As L. Chandra Kumar settled, tribunals remain subject to the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts, which sit above them.

And the one that catches everyone in 2026: is there still a Metropolitan Magistrate? No. The BNSS abolished the metropolitan magistracy when it replaced the CrPC on 1 July 2024. If a form, a website or a textbook still refers to a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, it’s out of date. Every magistrate is now a Judicial Magistrate of the first or second class, regardless of city size.

Frequently asked questions

What is the hierarchy of courts in India?
India has a single integrated judiciary with three main tiers: the Supreme Court of India at the top, 25 High Courts at the state level, and district and subordinate courts (civil and criminal) at the base. Tribunals and grassroots forums like Lok Adalats and Gram Nyayalayas run alongside this structure. A case generally starts at the lowest competent court and moves up on appeal.

How many courts are there at the top of the hierarchy?
There is one apex court, the Supreme Court of India, in New Delhi. Below it are 25 High Courts as of 2026, the newest being the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati, created on 1 January 2019.

How many judges does the Supreme Court of India have in 2026?
The sanctioned strength is 38 (the Chief Justice of India plus 37 other judges), raised from 34 by the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance promulgated on 16 May 2026. A confirming Bill, cleared by the Cabinet on 5 May 2026, is pending in Parliament.

What is the highest court in a state?
The High Court is the highest court in a state (or, in several cases, a group of states and union territories). It has writ jurisdiction under Article 226, appellate jurisdiction over the district courts, and supervisory control over all courts and tribunals in its territory under Articles 227 and 235.

What are the different levels of courts under the district judiciary?
On the civil side: District Judge and Additional District Judge, then Civil Judge (Senior Division), then Civil Judge (Junior Division), plus Courts of Small Causes. On the criminal side under the BNSS: Court of Session, then Chief Judicial Magistrate, then Judicial Magistrate first class and second class, with Executive Magistrates handling preventive functions.

Did the BNSS change the hierarchy of criminal courts?
Yes. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in force since 1 July 2024, abolished the Metropolitan Magistrate class entirely. Criminal courts are now uniformly classified as Courts of Session, Judicial Magistrates of the first and second class, and Executive Magistrates, with no separate metropolitan magistracy in large cities.

What is the difference between a court and a tribunal?
Courts are part of the general judicial hierarchy and decide all kinds of disputes; tribunals are specialised statutory bodies that decide a narrow category (company law, tax, environment, service matters). Tribunals are quasi-judicial and remain subject to the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts, as held in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997).

Where do most cases in India get filed?
In the district and subordinate courts. More than 80% of all pending cases in India are at this level, not in the High Courts or the Supreme Court. The district judiciary is where the ordinary citizen almost always encounters the court system first.

Can you appeal directly to the Supreme Court?
Only in limited situations. Most matters reach the Supreme Court by appeal from a High Court, or by a special leave petition under Article 136, which is discretionary. You can also approach the Supreme Court directly under Article 32 to enforce a fundamental right, and it has original jurisdiction under Article 131 for Centre-state disputes.

Are Lok Adalats and Gram Nyayalayas part of the court hierarchy?
They operate under it rather than as separate rungs. Lok Adalats (under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987) settle disputes by compromise, and their awards have the force of a civil decree. Gram Nyayalayas (under the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008) are village-level courts. Matters they can’t resolve return to the regular courts.

References

Case law

Statutes and Constitution